[4] Gorsuch wrote much on textualism in his book A Republic, If You Can Keep It,[54] published in mid-2019, and some of his questioning at the oral hearings drew on using textual interpretation of the law. Amendment & everything else. [15] The combined Bostock and Altitude Express cases drew numerous amicus curiae briefs. Numerous local governments passed similar LGBT employment discrimination statutes as well. [36][49], The religious journal First Things editor R. R. Reno called the opinion unworkable sophistry, comparing it to Dred Scott v. Sandford: "Historians may look back and judge Bostock the twenty-first-century analogue to Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision that imposed the Southern slave regime on the entire country and contributed to the intolerable contradictions that led to the Civil War. 17–1618. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. ALTITUDE EXPRESS, INC., … All are elected by the citizens of Clayton County and serve four (4) year terms. [16], Bostock appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, where the three-judge panel affirmed the District Court's ruling in 2018. [58] Echoing a comment made by Justice Elena Kagan in memorializing Scalia,[59] Skrmetti argued that Bostock shows "we really are all textualists now". [53] Michael D. Shear, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, wrote, "Justice Gorsuch employed a fundamentally conservative principle—a literal reading of the words of a statute—to reach a decision that contrasts sharply with the conclusions of the other conservative justices on the court". § 2000e-2(a)(1), states that it is illegal to discriminate in any hiring or employment practices based on an "individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". [8], Bostock believed that the county used the claim of misspent funds as a pretext for firing him for being gay, and sought legal recourse for workplace discrimination in 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. [31][32] The Court further held that Title VII protections against sex discrimination in the employment context apply to discrimination against particular individuals on the basis of sex, as opposed to discrimination against groups. NEED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH THE CLAYTON COUNTY CLERK OF SUPERIOR OR MAGISTRATE COURT?

Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,[22] (Harris Funeral Homes), in which the Sixth Circuit found Title VII also covered transgender employment discrimination,[23] set the stage for the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. [58], 140 S. Ct. 1731; 2020 WL 3146686; 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3252, Rallies outside of the Supreme Court building on October 8, 2019, the day of the oral hearing in the, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, R.G. States with such protections often have a state-level board that performs functions equivalent to the EEOC, and which will work with the EEOC to unify employment discrimination regulations. Between these cases, as well as prior Circuit court decisions, there had been a split of opinions on whether sexual orientation discrimination is covered by Title VII. [6], The nature of what protected classes under § 2000e-2(a)(1) have been refined through case law over the years. In upholding the ruling, the Eleventh Circuit pointed to their ruling in Evans that dismissed the Supreme Court's precedent against sex discrimination set by Price Waterhouse and Oncale.[18]. On June 17, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, that employers with at least 15 employees cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity. Gorsuch’s majority opinion leaves no wiggle room. [13], Gerald Bostock was an employee of Clayton County, within the Atlanta metropolitan area, as an official for its juvenile court system since 2003, with good performance records through the years. Gorsuch's majority opinion, Skrmetti argues, means that this "narrow" form of textualism—which, on Skrmetti's view, does not look to legislative history or other potential sources of the meaning of the statute—is now ascendant. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. "Showdown Over LGBTQ Employment Rights Hits Supreme Court", "Case Page: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia", "Symposium: Justices to consider federal employment protection for LGBT employees", "Major Companies Ask High Court to Support LGBT Worker Rights", "Gay workers not covered by civil rights law, Trump admin tells Supreme Court", "Suspicious Packages Found Outside Supreme Court Building", "Supreme Court clashes over meaning of 'sex' in LGBT discrimination cases", "Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers", "Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules", "Supreme Court bans LGBT employment discrimination", "Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules", "Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination", "Supreme Court finds federal law bars LGBT discrimination in workplace", "Human Rights Campaign: Supreme Court is On Right Side of History", "A Half-Century On, an Unexpected Milestone for L.G.B.T.Q. [39] Ken Mehlman took the decision as evidence that conservatism is not inconsistent with support for LGBT rights. [23] Just prior to the hearings, police from the District of Columbia had discovered two suspicious packages near the Supreme Court building and temporarily cleared the plaza of arriving supporters to remove the packages. After Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, his successor Lyndon B. Johnson advocated passage of the Civil Rights Act in the following year. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court in this case on June 15, 2020. Clayton County was a Supreme Court ruling which is DOJ,” Nieves said in an email. In his dissent, Alito asserted that at the time of the crafting of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 the concepts of sexual orientation and transgender would have been unknown and thus Congress's language should not be implied to cover these facets.